Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v World Netsafe Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 159

Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v World Netsafe Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 159

To establish contempt of an order to pay money within a specific time, the applicant must show wilful failure to comply, which requires proof that the person had capacity to pay within the relevant period; proof of means is needed. Failure to serve list of mail-out recipients constituted contempt due to the respondent's knowledge and capacity. Director is not liable for company contempt by mere omission to prevent breach.

Parties
Applicant: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission; First Respondent: World Netsafe Pty Ltd (ACN 087 515 848); Second Respondent: Terence Butler
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 March 2003
Procedural Posture
Contempt Proceedings / Judgment Following Hearing
Outcome
Contempt proved in Counts 9 and 11; other counts dismissed
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Accessorial Liability, Refund Orders, Misleading and Deceptive Conduct, Pyramid Schemes, Procedure for Committal, Orders to Pay Money, Service of Orders
Consumer Law Competition Law Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Accessorial Liability Refund Orders Misleading and Deceptive Conduct Pyramid Schemes +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission

Applicant

World Netsafe Pty Ltd (ACN 087 515 848)

First Respondent

Terence Butler

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Contempt Proceedings / Judgment Following Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether contempt proceedings require proof of debtor's capacity to satisfy refund order
  2. 2 Validity of O 37 r 2 of the Federal Court Rules
  3. 3 Application of Debtors Act 1869 (England)

Ratio Decidendi

To establish contempt of an order to pay money within a specific time, the applicant must show wilful failure to comply, which requires proof that the person had capacity to pay within the relevant period; proof of means is needed. Failure to serve list of mail-out recipients constituted contempt due to the respondent's knowledge and capacity. Director is not liable for company contempt by mere omission to prevent breach.

Court Disposition

Contempt proved in Counts 9 and 11; other counts dismissed

Orders

  • Matter listed for orders and directions at 10.15 am on Friday 14 March 2002.
  • Parties to be heard on penalty and costs.